Bibliographic record
Abstract
The book you see before you was born of a concern that the role of faith in Canadian politics was insufficiently understood.Episodic attention is paid to moments in which religiously based political mobilization surfaces in particular issue debates, such as Catholic school funding, abortion, the recognition of non-Christian minority faith practices, or same-sex marriage, although this occurs more in the media than in longer-term analytical work.Those who do comment frequently have wildly different approaches, many characterizing Canadian society as secularized to the point at which faith no longer has any sustained impact on this country's political life, and others seeing the religious right as exercising significant influence, even if not at the level of its American counterpart.Still others see religion as a factor shaping political choices only for ethno-religious minorities and declining segments of the Christian majority.Our decision to focus on how religion affects party politics arose from our own interest in parties.It was also influenced by the fact that we were developing the project during a period in which the Conservative Party of Canada held the reins of government in Ottawa, eliciting considerable public commentary about the influence of religious conservatives in political debate and public policy.Moreover, we were struck by important instances of provincial parties across the country wrestling
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.366 | 0.158 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".